Paul Krugman Attacks Britain's Austerity Drive As 'deeply Destructive'

[Traktion]

Yes.....well we DO spend hours here anyway.......(even PopGuns posted many thousands here).....it's just the debate seldom (never?) moves on to specifics. Which is a shame, as specifics could demonstrate practically how true freedom could work....... It won't be 'easy'.......But 'easy' is what we have had............ 'til now.......

I would enjoy a thread where ideas were thrown in, but there are a few points I would make:

1) Until people reject on principle that coercion isn't the answer, I doubt they will see the point in it.

2) Once you start making suggestions, people will say you are just suggesting a new sort of state, in the shape of your suggestions.

3) The market will come up with far more solutions than any thread we contribute on here. By creating a list, people focus on what is on the list, rather than what isn't.

4) People will attack the proposals on the list, rather than the coercive activities of individuals/organisations (including the state).

Until the core principles of anarchism/voluntarism are accepted by a good proportion of people here, it may be counter productive jumping to the next step. IMO, there is an increasing number of people thinking about what the state is and what it does in a negative light. However, even on this forum, the majority are still suggesting that a tax for this or a law for that, is the answer (ie. yet more coercion is the solution).

[erranta]

I would enjoy a thread where ideas were thrown in, but there are a few points I would make:

1) Until people reject on principle that coercion isn't the answer, I doubt they will see the point in it.

2) Once you start making suggestions, people will say you are just suggesting a new sort of state, in the shape of your suggestions.

3) The market will come up with far more solutions than any thread we contribute on here. By creating a list, people focus on what is on the list, rather than what isn't.

4) People will attack the proposals on the list, rather than the coercive activities of individuals/organisations (including the state).

Until the core principles of anarchism/voluntarism are accepted by a good proportion of people here, it may be counter productive jumping to the next step. IMO, there is an increasing number of people thinking about what the state is and what it does in a negative light. However, even on this forum, the majority are still suggesting that a tax for this or a law for that, is the answer (ie. yet more coercion is the solution).

Server burp

Double-Post

Edited June 6, 2012 by erranta

[erranta]

I would enjoy a thread where ideas were thrown in, but there are a few points I would make:

1) Until people reject on principle that coercion isn't the answer, I doubt they will see the point in it.

2) Once you start making suggestions, people will say you are just suggesting a new sort of state, in the shape of your suggestions.

3) The market will come up with far more solutions than any thread we contribute on here. By creating a list, people focus on what is on the list, rather than what isn't.

4) People will attack the proposals on the list, rather than the coercive activities of individuals/organisations (including the state).

Until the core principles of anarchism/voluntarism are accepted by a good proportion of people here, it may be counter productive jumping to the next step. IMO, there is an increasing number of people thinking about what the state is and what it does in a negative light. However, even on this forum, the majority are still suggesting that a tax for this or a law for that, is the answer (ie. yet more coercion is the solution).

You are getting to a 'core'

Occupy ONLY existed where it was cos authorities were manipulating the swampy types - it was a decoy to relieve pressures on bankers ie let people use occupy as an surrogate outlet for their anger against City types

The CC mark in Occupy is distinctly a Masonic Mark - also a witty masonic piss-take word cos it sounds like vampire squids

eg Their Tent-acles everywhere! (An 'Acle' is an Acorn - me old fruit)

Edited June 6, 2012 by erranta

[LuckyOne]

I would enjoy a thread where ideas were thrown in, but there are a few points I would make:

1) Until people reject on principle that coercion isn't the answer, I doubt they will see the point in it.

2) Once you start making suggestions, people will say you are just suggesting a new sort of state, in the shape of your suggestions.

3) The market will come up with far more solutions than any thread we contribute on here. By creating a list, people focus on what is on the list, rather than what isn't.

4) People will attack the proposals on the list, rather than the coercive activities of individuals/organisations (including the state).

Until the core principles of anarchism/voluntarism are accepted by a good proportion of people here, it may be counter productive jumping to the next step. IMO, there is an increasing number of people thinking about what the state is and what it does in a negative light. However, even on this forum, the majority are still suggesting that a tax for this or a law for that, is the answer (ie. yet more coercion is the solution).

The problem is that 51% of the people are effectively voting for coercion as they use the state to extract as much as they can from the other 49%. The 51% do not have the vision to understand that there are better ways to get even more than they have now without the use of force. The agents of coercion (political parties of all colours and more tangential members of the political class) have no self interest in opening new ideas in the debate because they would lose their entire reason for being.

[Game_Over]

Game theory dictates that people will only attack others, if they have a good chance of winning and the spoils are worthwhile. The difference between rich and poor, on a global scale, is getting smaller by the year, narrowing the benefit of war. Even if one party benefits, the sum of both parties is less, due to the cost of war.

It doesn't make me unhappy that anarchism may never be achievable (at least in my life time). The clarity, consistency and the morality of the position pleases me.

I would rather know what is wrong and never be able to fix it, than spend a lifetime rationalising over how much evil is necessary.

By defining the struggle for survival as evil, you have created for yourself a world that is entirely evil because every creature on the planet is engaged in a struggle to survive.

The only way to resolve this would be to exterminate every human being on the planet, then evil would no longer exist, because a bear killing a salmon does not see itself as evil.

[DabHand]

I am a minarchist.

Libertarianism requires legal framework in which to operate.

Otherwise it does descend into who has the biggest force and the will to use it.

People are generally stupid, lazy and selfish (although perhaps a major change in the way society operated would alter that?). If it takes coercion so l can operate freely without fearing my safety then l'll take some form of state any day.

Worst thing about state is that it buys votes and does so with debt, and so there is no logical limit to its promises, right up til they fail to deliver them.

Socialism was possible due to industrial revolution and petrochem economy, and was a sop to prevent revolution after WW2. Interestingly it was built from state appropriation of a large number of social/mutual/friendly/infrastructure assets that had somehow been created without state/socialism in the victorian era*. Would be interesting to see how many PFI schools/hossies are even still standing in 25 years.

*Mind you it probably helped that we stole a load of wealth from the darkies to achieve it.

Until someone hoiks unlimited energy out of their bum, the system as we know it is setting us up for a hard reality check. It cannot deal with future claims on productivity (debt) with non exponential growth. The state may be the first to fail as it finds its own size and inefficiencies kill it off first, although l am sure it will tighten the authoritarian fist as it tries to hold back the entropy demanding its demise.

Here endeth my random thoughts in no particular order.

[Traktion]

By defining the struggle for survival as evil, you have created for yourself a world that is entirely evil because every creature on the planet is engaged in a struggle to survive.

The only way to resolve this would be to exterminate every human being on the planet, then evil would no longer exist, because a bear killing a salmon does not see itself as evil.

It's hardly a struggle for 'survival'. There is plenty to go around. It's about the greedy, trying to coerce others, to get much more than they need to survive.

Besides, if you want a 'dog eat dog' world, why would you want a state with law and order? After all, by your definition, everyone is just part of a 'struggle for survival' and raping, stealing and killing to get what they want is just fair game.

[Traktion]

The problem is that 51% of the people are effectively voting for coercion as they use the state to extract as much as they can from the other 49%. The 51% do not have the vision to understand that there are better ways to get even more than they have now without the use of force. The agents of coercion (political parties of all colours and more tangential members of the political class) have no self interest in opening new ideas in the debate because they would lose their entire reason for being.

Sure, which is why it is important to debate the subject.

People largely don't want theft and aggression in their lives, other than a few psychos. They just need to see the world from a different perspective, to see that it is one rule for them and quite another for their rulers and their buddies.

[LuckyOne]

Sure, which is why it is important to debate the subject.

People largely don't want theft and aggression in their lives, other than a few psychos. They just need to see the world from a different perspective, to see that it is one rule for them and quite another for their rulers and their buddies.

I agree.

The work that you are doing is important because it helps expand the boundaries of a few people's thinking.

[LuckyOne]

I am a minarchist.

Libertarianism requires legal framework in which to operate.

Otherwise it does descend into who has the biggest force and the will to use it.

People are generally stupid, lazy and selfish (although perhaps a major change in the way society operated would alter that?). If it takes coercion so l can operate freely without fearing my safety then l'll take some form of state any day.

Worst thing about state is that it buys votes and does so with debt, and so there is no logical limit to its promises, right up til they fail to deliver them.

Socialism was possible due to industrial revolution and petrochem economy, and was a sop to prevent revolution after WW2. Interestingly it was built from state appropriation of a large number of social/mutual/friendly/infrastructure assets that had somehow been created without state/socialism in the victorian era*. Would be interesting to see how many PFI schools/hossies are even still standing in 25 years.

*Mind you it probably helped that we stole a load of wealth from the darkies to achieve it.

Until someone hoiks unlimited energy out of their bum, the system as we know it is setting us up for a hard reality check. It cannot deal with future claims on productivity (debt) with non exponential growth. The state may be the first to fail as it finds its own size and inefficiencies kill it off first, although l am sure it will tighten the authoritarian fist as it tries to hold back the entropy demanding its demise.

Here endeth my random thoughts in no particular order.

And an excellent rant it was.

It is possible that anarchism will be the natural progression of minarchism once people get used to the idea that the state can't be the solution to all of their problems when the state is unable to meet all of its promises for the very reasons that you state.

[Game_Over]

It's hardly a struggle for 'survival'. There is plenty to go around. It's about the greedy, trying to coerce others, to get much more than they need to survive.

Besides, if you want a 'dog eat dog' world, why would you want a state with law and order? After all, by your definition, everyone is just part of a 'struggle for survival' and raping, stealing and killing to get what they want is just fair game.

Well there clearly isn't enough to go around - unless your anarchist society exists within the borders of a heavily armed state.

Here's my logical position.

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

So unless strict population control is imposed by what would then be a draconian state, conflict for resources - or what you would describe as 'evil' is inevitable.

If anyone can spot a flaw in this argument please point it out, because the logic seems inescapable to me.

[Game_Over]

And an excellent rant it was.

It is possible that anarchism will be the natural progression of minarchism once people get used to the idea that the state can't be the solution to all of their problems when the state is unable to meet all of its promises for the very reasons that you state.

I must be a ministatist then.

[easy2012]

Well there clearly isn't enough to go around - unless your anarchist society exists within the borders of a heavily armed state.

Here's my logical position.

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

So unless strict population control is imposed by what would then be a draconian state, conflict for resources - or what you would describe as 'evil' is inevitable.

If anyone can spot a flaw in this argument please point it out, because the logic seems inescapable to me.

Everyone will behave reasonable and impose self control and if they don't, they will be ostracized

(and no, I don't believe that is the likely outcome...)

Edited June 6, 2012 by easy2012

[cock-eyed octopus]

Well there clearly isn't enough to go around - unless your anarchist society exists within the borders of a heavily armed state.

Here's my logical position.

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

So unless strict population control is imposed by what would then be a draconian state, conflict for resources - or what you would describe as 'evil' is inevitable.

If anyone can spot a flaw in this argument please point it out, because the logic seems inescapable to me.

Not exactly a flaw, but, although 3) is undeniable, there are differing views on how finite those resources are, compared to the biomass represented by the human race.

This relationship is heavily influenced by the available technology. For example, fusion power would change available resources dramatically. There may also be other Worlds available to us eventually ...

[KingBingo]

I am a minarchist.

Libertarianism requires legal framework in which to operate.

Otherwise it does descend into who has the biggest force and the will to use it.

People are generally stupid, lazy and selfish (although perhaps a major change in the way society operated would alter that?). If it takes coercion so l can operate freely without fearing my safety then l'll take some form of state any day.

Worst thing about state is that it buys votes and does so with debt, and so there is no logical limit to its promises, right up til they fail to deliver them.

Socialism was possible due to industrial revolution and petrochem economy, and was a sop to prevent revolution after WW2. Interestingly it was built from state appropriation of a large number of social/mutual/friendly/infrastructure assets that had somehow been created without state/socialism in the victorian era*. Would be interesting to see how many PFI schools/hossies are even still standing in 25 years.

*Mind you it probably helped that we stole a load of wealth from the darkies to achieve it.

Until someone hoiks unlimited energy out of their bum, the system as we know it is setting us up for a hard reality check. It cannot deal with future claims on productivity (debt) with non exponential growth. The state may be the first to fail as it finds its own size and inefficiencies kill it off first, although l am sure it will tighten the authoritarian fist as it tries to hold back the entropy demanding its demise.

Here endeth my random thoughts in no particular order.

Thanks for posting that, I was going to post something similar and you saved me the hassle.

Minimal coercion to fund a small state that provides a legal framework is fine as far as I'm concerned. Desirable even. I don't share Traktions moralising over coercion.

[KingBingo]

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

Except I have no problem executing certain criminals. If you kill someone, I don't have a problem with a state killing you back. (exceptional circumstances etc)

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

Hmmm, as long as they can provide for the child.

The Labour founders of the Welfare state (such as A.Bevan) originally said that anyone going on welfare would need to be sterilized, they may have been onto something.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

For now. I am inclined to believe over the very long term human ingenuity will be pretty much limitless. Providing we can wipe out the mental sickness that is Socialism.

[Traktion]

Thanks for posting that, I was going to post something similar and you saved me the hassle.

Minimal coercion to fund a small state that provides a legal framework is fine as far as I'm concerned. Desirable even. I don't share Traktions moralising over coercion.

IMO, many minarchists are the same, which is why ideologically, they are far away from anarchists.

No doubt that legal framework that you wish for, will also be created by the wealthy and influential too. Exclusive land ownership (monopoly) would likely be top of the list, to keep the poor paying rent too. Maybe it would also include defining corporations as legal identities, preferably with limited liability.

Unless the legal framework is created from the bottom up, those at the top will create laws to suit themselves, at the expense of others. Legal arbitration/judgements need to be left to the free market, just as any other service should be.

[Police]

Another thread spammed.

[Traktion]

Well there clearly isn't enough to go around - unless your anarchist society exists within the borders of a heavily armed state.

Here's my logical position.

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

So unless strict population control is imposed by what would then be a draconian state, conflict for resources - or what you would describe as 'evil' is inevitable.

If anyone can spot a flaw in this argument please point it out, because the logic seems inescapable to me.

Of course there is enough to go around. The problem is, the capital is in the hands of the few and the legislation they help to create, keeps it this way.

I agree with your points 1-3. You can ignore property rights if you wish, but most civilised societies define that as unacceptable. That's why people want a police force and courts to impose law and order.

[Traktion]

I agree.

The work that you are doing is important because it helps expand the boundaries of a few people's thinking.

Thanks!

[nixy]

Thanks for posting that, I was going to post something similar and you saved me the hassle.

Minimal coercion to fund a small state that provides a legal framework is fine as far as I'm concerned. Desirable even. I don't share Traktions moralising over coercion.

OK, What constitutes a small state, and how would it be kept small. I guess I could accept a system that would coerce 10% of 'GDP' on what is now referred to as public services. Thing is, once you get people to accept coercion is OK, that 10% would become 20% and so on.

Coercion is a bit like pregnancy....... you can't have only part of it.

[PopGun]

I am a minarchist.

Libertarianism requires legal framework in which to operate.

Otherwise it does descend into who has the biggest force and the will to use it.

People are generally stupid, lazy and selfish (although perhaps a major change in the way society operated would alter that?). If it takes coercion so l can operate freely without fearing my safety then l'll take some form of state any day.

Worst thing about state is that it buys votes and does so with debt, and so there is no logical limit to its promises, right up til they fail to deliver them.

Socialism was possible due to industrial revolution and petrochem economy, and was a sop to prevent revolution after WW2. Interestingly it was built from state appropriation of a large number of social/mutual/friendly/infrastructure assets that had somehow been created without state/socialism in the victorian era*. Would be interesting to see how many PFI schools/hossies are even still standing in 25 years.

*Mind you it probably helped that we stole a load of wealth from the darkies to achieve it.

Until someone hoiks unlimited energy out of their bum, the system as we know it is setting us up for a hard reality check. It cannot deal with future claims on productivity (debt) with non exponential growth. The state may be the first to fail as it finds its own size and inefficiencies kill it off first, although l am sure it will tighten the authoritarian fist as it tries to hold back the entropy demanding its demise.

Here endeth my random thoughts in no particular order.

Good post.

In my very humble opinion, I think alot of our amazing 'technological discoveries' are drib feeds from decades old innovations. (Didn't the Queen send her first email from a Navy base in the 1970s?). So I reckon a lot of technology is purposefully being held back or stalled in development. No point in presenting the world with a game changing energy solution when there's still money to be made in oil etc.

I wouldn't be suprised if an innovation will be announced in the eleventh hour, 'saving' us from the abyss. Which in turn will mean business as usual for worldwide governments.

[PopGun]

Another thread spammed.

[Traktion]

Another thread spammed.

The thread would have gone dead days ago anyway, without the topic diverging.

[Traktion]

I am a minarchist.

Libertarianism requires legal framework in which to operate.

Otherwise it does descend into who has the biggest force and the will to use it.

People are generally stupid, lazy and selfish (although perhaps a major change in the way society operated would alter that?). If it takes coercion so l can operate freely without fearing my safety then l'll take some form of state any day.

It's dangerous mistake to assume that only the state can provide a legal framework, especially one which represents the common person.

Legislation, as in state law, is largely a modern phenomena. One of the original claims of parliaments across Europe, was that they would codify (ie. standardise) existing common law across their lands. Ofc, you would get random laws coming down from dictators/monarchs of the time before parliament, but not nearly on the scale of a modern, statist, region.

So how did common law form? From people arbitrating (judging) disputes and the results forming precedence - the foundation of case law. While common law was far from perfect, much of it was based on sound principles of property rights. Where a victim had themselves or their property damaged, the perpetrator was usually asked to pay damages, which was more beneficial to them than a death sentence (no compensation - just revenge) or imprisonment (costs money, with revenge).

In short, the common law of the land formed from the bottom up, long before parliaments and their top down, legislative models, became popular. The state policing of the laws of the latter is only less that 200 years old too.

Worst thing about state is that it buys votes and does so with debt, and so there is no logical limit to its promises, right up til they fail to deliver them.

Socialism was possible due to industrial revolution and petrochem economy, and was a sop to prevent revolution after WW2. Interestingly it was built from state appropriation of a large number of social/mutual/friendly/infrastructure assets that had somehow been created without state/socialism in the victorian era*. Would be interesting to see how many PFI schools/hossies are even still standing in 25 years.

*Mind you it probably helped that we stole a load of wealth from the darkies to achieve it.

Indeed. The cooperative movement was doing far more for the workers, far earlier, than the state did.

WW1 and WW2 brought in 'emergency' taxation, legislation and so forth, which have restricted our freedoms and stolen our property since.

Until someone hoiks unlimited energy out of their bum, the system as we know it is setting us up for a hard reality check. It cannot deal with future claims on productivity (debt) with non exponential growth. The state may be the first to fail as it finds its own size and inefficiencies kill it off first, although l am sure it will tighten the authoritarian fist as it tries to hold back the entropy demanding its demise.

Here endeth my random thoughts in no particular order.

Energy is a big issue, of course. However, that doesn't make killing people to get to it, right. This is especially true when it is to flatter our comfy life styles, rather than it being a life or death situation.

Once energy becomes plentiful (through technology), what will be the next excuse to take stuff from others?

Edited June 7, 2012 by Traktion